The BBC reports today that a US ice-breaker, the Polar Star, has now been called in to rescue not only the trapped Akademik Shokalskiy, but also the Chinese rescue ship, the Xue Long, which transferred those passengers from one to the other, and is now itself trapped. In other words, the ship which rescued the passengers from the trapped ship by flying them in a helicopter to another ship, which nearly got trapped, is trapped. There’s a Monty Python sketch in there somewhere.

The reality is that two ships, along with their crew (22 on the Russian ship, and 111 on the Chinese vessel), have gotten trapped in the ice due – allegedly – to the negligence of Prof. Chris Turney, who was out there to prove that the ice was, er, melting. I say “allegedly” because it’s pretty obvious that there will be legal repercussions from all this, and I’ll let all our lurking lawyers and journalists and non-lurking journalists go threaten Anthony Watts and others for prejudicing court proceedings instead of wasting our time. This post is about the BBC’s coverage (and cover-up in process) of the whole fiasco.

Yes, I know the ice melting was only one part of the official research reasons for the trip, which included studies of various wildlife and marine habitats. But the focus was on how Climate Change – which they all believe is caused by human activity – is affecting those things, just like the supposedly melting ice. Curiously, as some here have noticed, that purpose came and went throughout the BBC’s coverage of the story.

The Aurora Australis has finally been told it can head home with its new passengers, and will eventually be allowed to go back and finish what it was supposed to be doing: resupplying Australia’s research base, Casey Station. Hopefully nobody else in the area will need rescuing by an icebreaker, because the Xue Long won’t be able to help. The US Coast Guard icebreaker is similarly abandoning its own proper mission, as even the BBC reports, to resupply the US research station on Ross Island. 133 people are stuck, and who knows how many more actual scientists and their research have been severely inconvenienced by this tourist trip. Or was it a research trip? We’ll see.

The BBC is currently describing the Akademik Shokalskiy as a “Russian research vessel”. If and when it gets freed eventually (there’s still the possibility that the ice will crush the hull), its next scheduled task is to take a group of tourists around the Antarctic Peninsula. See, it originally was an actual research vessel, so the BBC is being “accurate” as usual. Only it’s retired from that and has been refitted as a tourist ship. The Expeditions Online website lists it as an “Expedition Ship”, and the amenities look appealing.

The Akademik Shokalskiy is a fully ice-strengthened expedition vessel built in 1984 for polar and oceanographic research. This class of vessel is world renowned for polar exploration, because of its strength, maneuverability and small passenger numbers. The Shokalskiy provides comfortable accommodation in double and twin cabins with private facilities. All cabins have outside windows and ample storage space. On board there is a combined bar/library lounge area and a dedicated lecture room, where the science team and expedition staff will present a programme of talks.

Check out the website and you’ll see its “NOTICE TO REPORTERS” that they’re not the operators of the ship and are merely a booking agent. They know there will be legal ramifications and want to make sure nobody includes them as a defendant in any lawsuit.

Before we get to the inevitable legal repercussions, let’s examine just how cavalier with the truth the BBC has been during this whole saga. Aside from who is at fault here, there’s the question of the overall purpose of this little adventure. The official reason we’ve been fed by the BBC is that it was to retrace the footsteps of Douglas Mawson’s original tremendous scientific expedition to the region. We’re meant to ignore Turney’s own “Science Case” for the trip is all about the melting ice, and how Climate Change (and we all know there’s only one kind and one cause for these people) affects the wildlife and ocean habitats. All the other stuff is a sideshow, an aegis under which to do this.

Turney has written a book about Mawson (a free signed copy goes to anyone who sends him $400. A measly $200 will only get you the t-shirt. Hopefully all “expedition members” who paid $8000 minimum will at least get one of those for their trouble.). Mawson, of course, deserves all the respect in the world for his achievements. His truly scientific exploration essentially opened the world’s mind up to Antarctica. There’s certainly nothing wrong with wanting to retrace his steps and sort of duplicate his tests in celebration of the 100th anniversary of his pretty amazing expedition. When one considers that he barely survived the ordeal but through his own strength and initiative lived to tell about it, and compares his experience to the whining from certain members of today’s expedition, there’s much to discuss about what’s become of us as a species.

Unfortunately, Turney, who has done some proper science and is an experienced expedition leader, he set off expecting to find less ice. In addition to the terrific and often amusing coverage from Anthony Watts, Paul Homewood has been following this silly saga, and he too notices some BBC dishonesty. In this case, he’s calling out both Turney and the BBC:

There have been various attempts to blame the debacle on global warming, but this one really is nonsensical.

According to the expedition report, filed by the Guardian:

“Direct access from the sea has been impossible for the past four years, however, ever since a 75-mile-long iceberg called B09B grounded itself in the entrance to Commonwealth Bay. A thick band of sea ice has since built up around the iceberg, sticking fast to the land and blocking ships from getting to Boat Harbour, where Mawson moored the Aurora in January 1912.”

And Chris Turney, leader of the expedition states that:

“The thick chaotic surface we see around the Shokalskiy is consistent with the idea that this ice is several years old and is considerably more difficult to break through by icebreaker than single year ice.”

NSIDC are quite clear just what sea ice is:

Sea ice is frozen seawater that floats on the ocean surface. Blanketing millions of square kilometers, sea ice forms and melts with the polar seasons, affecting both human activity and biological habitat. In the Arctic, some sea ice persists year after year, whereas almost all Southern Ocean or Antarctic sea ice is “seasonal ice,” meaning it melts away and reforms annually.

A scientist ignored other scientists, because of his own religious beliefs. And the BBC is enabling him to cover it up.

On Dec. 26, BBC journalist Andrew (Bad) Luck-Baker reported on how the science was continuing while they were stuck in the ice. In a moment of honesty, he admitted the Warmist intent of the expedition:

The goal of the modern day Australasian Antarctic Expedition is to repeat many of the original measurements and studies, to see how facets of the environment have changed over the past century. This passage of time coincides with warming and climate change in Antarctica.

Then we get to another level of spin. There’s also the question about who are all those other passengers who were not crew or scientists or PhD students or Guardinistas or Beeboids (or Google marketing mavens or Turney’s own family). Further down there’s this:

In addition to the Russian crew of 22, the expedition team consists of 18 professional scientists from Australia and New Zealand, and 22 volunteer science assistants. They are members of the public, ranging in age from their 20s to their 70s. They paid to join the scientific adventure.

So not eco-tourists, but “volunteer science assistants”.

A report on Jan. 2 stated that one of the goals of the expedition was “to track how quickly the Antarctic’s sea ice was disappearing”. So let’s not have any more denial that this wasn’t a Warmist expedition with a goal of “proving” their theory, rather than a simple historical retracing of Mawson’s journey.

On Dec. 28, it was a “scientific mission ship”. No mention of tourists, although they quoted one of them as a “science volunteer”. Actually, it was the same guy and the same quote (Bad) Luck-Baker included in the previous report. Didn’t he have time to speak to anyone else? Or were they all too busy with the yoga and knot-tying and songwriting?

Two days later, either he or the other BBC contributor (pulling double duty for the Guardian as well, naturally), Alok Jha, filmed “Expedition Member” Terry Gostlow telling the folks back home that they it was all “good fun” and they were hoping to get back home soon. Gostlow is not listed as either a Science Leader or a PhD student on the Spirit of Mawson website, so one assumes he’s another one of those paying volunteers.

On the same day, either (Bad) Luck-Baker, Jha, or a desk-bound editor filed a report when they learned that the Xue Long was on its way with the helicopter.

The Russian-flagged research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy has been stuck in ice for nearly a week. It is carrying 74 scientists, tourists and crew.

Oops. On the same page, there’s an inset extra commentary from (Bad) Luck-Baker, where he refers to “research volunteers”. A different BBC report from the same day also refers to tourists.

Oops again. So we’ve gone from “science volunteers” to “expedition member” to “research volunteers” to “tourists”, all in the space of a week.

I’m sounding sarcastic about this because the BBC’s inconsistency is rather telling. If they were true paying field assistants, actually involved somehow in helping the scientific work, nobody would dream of calling them tourists. I’m saying the BBC seems uninterested in letting you know much these paying customers were contributing in between attending lectures and praying to Gaia, not because there’s no such thing as science volunteers, paying or otherwise. In fact, I’m well aware that this is a very common thing in a number of scientific disciplines. Many archaeology and palaeontology projects simply wouldn’t be possible without lots of people paying their own way to help sort artifacts, spend hours in the heat painstakingly brushing away dirt, and even make the tea. These things are advertised regularly things in science and history magazines.

The fact that the BBC – an organization known to have the promotion of Warmism as a directive from the top – sometimes refers to the paying customers as tourists tells us that it’s not quite the same thing as people paying their way to help excavate some dinosaur bones or catalog a mind-numbing amount of 5000 year-old ostracons.

The reason I’m looking at these paying passengers is because this appears to be the deciding factor in what happened. Now that people are becoming aware that hell and lots of money will be paid, and the lawyers are sharpening their pencils, blame is being placed on Turney not only for an apparent lack of preparation (it seems that he didn’t make sure they had adequate weather reports), but for indulging his paying eco-tourist customers instead of heeding the ship captain’s warnings and getting out of harm’s way while there was still time, the BBC has rushed in to help with his defense.

Meanwhile Prof Chris Turney, co-leader of the AAE 2013, has defended the scientific value of the expedition and rejected claims it was a “tourist trip” hampered by poor preparation.

Writing in the UK’s Observer newspaper, he said the trip had been struck by bad luck as opposed to human error. He said it was an important scientific expedition and its success would ultimately be measured by peer-reviewed studies.

I’m sure Turney is very eager to reject those claims. Whatever he publishes from this expedition will only be reviewed by peers who already agree with his conclusions, but that’s neither here nor there. The problem for him is that it’s not just people the BBC will claim have a vested interest in damaging the reputation of Warmists saying it was due to human error: one of his own passengers has said it. The Australian Green politician, Janet Rice, said this on her own blog (h/t WUWT):

The third drama of the day is the one which is still unfolding. Because of the Argo mishap we got off late, and had one less vehicle to ferry people to and fro. I’m told the Captain was becoming rather definite late in the afternoon that we needed to get everyone back on board ASAP because of the coming weather and the ice closing in. As I write we are continuing to make extremely slow progress through what looks like a winter alpine snow field – it’s yet another surreal part of this journey that we are in a ship trying to barge our way through here! I’m sure the Captain would have been much happier if we had got away a few hours earlier.

In other words, Turney ignored the advice of his captain – someone who is an experienced professional and knows the area and its conditions very, very well – in favor of indulging his science volunteers/research volunteers/expedition members/tourists. Read the whole blog and you’ll see that, while at least one actual scientist was taking seal tissue samples, the paying customers were there to commune with the penguins and have nice day out. Turney also wrote at a few days before this that he was surprised to see some ice move in so quickly. A pretty cavalier approach from start to finish is in evidence in other blog posts collected by one of Watt’s readers here.

The Argo to which she refers is one of three amphibious all-terrain research vehicles, which they damaged by towing it back in haste. Who’s going to pay for that? And who do you think paid the way for a Green politician? She sure wasn’t there to help constituents. She’s a Warmist and was there to support the cause.

There were others there not for science but to support the cause. Google did one of their Google Doodle competitions, and awarded two free trips to teachers whose students sent in the winning entries. They were there to do lesson plans and video chats to promote Warmism to children. No lesson plans have been published yet. Google also sent along their Australia/New Zealand branding and marketing manager (listed as part of the Science Team!). For Warmism.

To sum up, we have evidence that the expedition leader had a pre-conceived notion to expect less ice, wasn’t completely prepared for everything, and had a lot of tourists on board to complicate matters and placed an apparently undue burden on the expedition itself. Allegedly, of course. Notice, though, that the BBC has reported precisely none of this. They have, however, reported Turney’s surprise and excuses for the ice trapping them.

The BBC has been misleading about the reasons for the trip, the nature of many of the passengers, and the underlying as well as overt cause of their predicament. All in the name of supporting their Warmist agenda. They assigned two journalists, including World Service senior science editor (Bad) Luck-Baker, to follow the scientists around to tell you how the wildlife and environment was responding to climate change. Period. They say so right here.

Alok Jha and Andrew Luck-Baker continue to follow the scientists on the ongoing Australasian Antarctic Expedition 2013. They go out on fieldwork trips with the researchers studying how the wildlife that lives in this inhospitable environment is responding to climate change.

All the history stuff and retracing of Mawson’s footstep was window dressing for the Warmist agenda. In case there are any lingering doubts, the top listing on the Supporters page of the expedition website is Turney’s own Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales. I imagine not a few Australian citizens are going to question their government’s handing out taxpayer money for this as well.

You know what the BBC isn’t reporting? That the ice is, in fact, not melting the way they claim, and Global Warming isn’t ruining it. It turns out that the models predicting the horror show were not based on proper data, and so overestimated everything. You know that iceberg that Turney blames for trapping them? The one which AGW was supposedly causing to calve? In reality, actual scientists have discovered that it’s been ground away on an underwater ridge. Even what he blames for what he wrongly blames is wrong. BBC Science editor Jonathan Amos wrote about that underwater ridge once, but I think he got away with it. I can’t even find it now.

More recently, just as the whole expedition coverage was kicking off, Amos managed to report that satellite data showed ice loss in West Antarctica, nowhere near Mawson’s Hut, in order to reinforce the dogma that we were all going to be doomed by rising sea levels. He wisely refrained from openly blaming AGW there. He’s done more reports on the new satellite data showing a microscopic rise in sea levels due to a little melting Antarctic ice, but doesn’t remind everyone that it’s not due to AGW, which he ought to be doing at every opportunity so that people don’t get the wrong idea. Of course, that wrong idea is the correct one the BBC wants their audience to have.

The entire thing was expected to give a boost to the whole Warmist agenda, so the BBC eagerly assigned two people to go along, and spent who knows how much of your license fee to do it. Once the whole thing went wrong and everyone started to find out it was half science, half eco-tourism, all with a dedicated agenda, they played around with the truth in order to keep the image of historical reenactment going. I fear that information will not be available via FOI requests, because journalism. In any case, it’s your license fee hard at work.

I suspect Prof. Turney might get thrown under the bus by people who see this foolish voyage as damaging to the cause. Let’s see how the BBC covers it.

I was watching the BBC1 main news a few moments ago and in particular the rather fascinating coverage of the Titanic Memorial cruise reported here. ALL seemed fine until from nowhere, came the pronouncement that “thanks to global warming” this memorial cruise will not encounter the icebergs and icefield that brought the Titanic to its icy grave at the bottom of the North Atlantic. Such a pity that an otherwise decent report had to be spoiled by a totally pointless piece of evangelising for AGW.

If there is one faith the BBC does follow, it is that of AGW. Biased BBC contributor Alan comments… “BBC getting very excited:

‘CO2 ‘drove end to last ice age’
A new, detailed record of past climate change provides compelling evidence that the last ice age was ended by a rise in temperature driven by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The finding is based on a very broad range of data, including even the shells of ancient tiny ocean animals.’http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404

However the Nature article the BBC quote also trumpets the headline:

‘Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation’

But what drove the temperature change and release of CO2? Hidden way down the BBC report we find out it was the change in Earth orbit and the increase in power of the Suns rays. So global warming was in fact driven by the sun.

CO2 may have added to it….and we know that global warming preceded CO2 release by up to 800 years as even Phil Jones from the CRU admits….but the initiator was solar power.

One of the great things about Biased BBC is the tremendous expertise we have on the topic of AGW – with Robin Horbury in particular dissecting much of the nonsense spouted by the BBC on this issue. I was amused by this latest headline from our dear friend, Richard Black.

The progressive shrinking of Arctic sea ice is bringing colder, snowier winters to the UK and other areas of Europe, North America and China, a study shows.As global temperatures have risen, the area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice in summer and autumn has been falling. Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a US/China-based team show this affects the jet stream and brings cold, snowy weather.

And for those who can’t be bothered wading through the dross, there’s a nice picture of a Greek city swathed in snow. Oh, and there’s a picture of a Walrus looking sad. Do you think Richard wants us to really really believe in AGW perchance? Right, let’s take this drivel from Black apart…

Guido had the goods here yesterday and now the Mail today. B-BBC contributor Alan makes some very valid points here..

“The recent ‘BEST’ report, not peer reviewed, on world temperature changes, was cited as evidence by Richard Black that the sceptics are wrong…..and that Phil Jones of the CRU has been proven to be a truthful and honest reporter of facts (despite absolute evidence from the emails and indeed the science itself to the contrary). Now it seems the BEST report and the conclusions drawn by one of its authors were best taken with a pinch of salt. The temperature hasn’t risen for over a decade, there is no proof that warming is the result of man’s activities to any large extent…..North America and Northern Europe have been cooling.

I wonder how Black will get out of this one…..having reported so enthusiastically and uncritically something that he believes rather than taking a professional, objective view? Black aside the BBC are adopting more slippery tactics in persuading us that global warming is having seriously detrimental effects on the world…and it never mentions any benefits.”READ MORE HERE

“The BBC’s ‘FrozenPlanet’ is a stunning and fascinating film presented by the trusted,authoritative and well loved David Attenborough.

The BBC recognise that Attenborough can be a hugely influential figure havingbeen a fixture in most people’s lives for years from childhood onwards….atrusted, ‘fatherly’ figure. To have him hint that global warming is a disasterfor the world will be calculated by the BBC to change our attitudes and supportthe climate change movement.

When Attenborough slips in comments such as ‘this maybe the last time we seethis Arctic wilderness’ or similar statements throughout the programme it isessentially ‘product placement’ by the BBC using a programme about the Arcticto champion its own political agenda in a subtle and devious manner.

What is so clever is that there is no mention of man made causes for climatechange….so you are not alerted to any agenda nor do you then start askingdifficult questions that distract you from the message.

Once the BBC has it fixed in your subconscious that climate change is real andimportantly, harmful, it can move on to nudge you into believing the sole causeis man made emissions of CO2.

Look at Black’s piece on the BEST report….he claims it proves ‘sceptics’ werewrong about denying AGW…..but the report only concludes that temperatureshave risen…it states categorically that there is no proven link to man madecauses.

The sceptics though have never claimed that there has been no rise intemperature …they are ‘sceptical’ of the ‘proofs’ so far provided by somescientists…many of whom seem to be so determined to ‘prove’ AGW that theywill do anything to hide the truth….as shown by the CRU emails and now bythis revelation about one of the BEST author’s activities.

“Remember Paul Hudson,the rogue weather man at the BBC who doesn’t do ‘consensus’ and who upset the’gang’ when he noted that there had been no warming since 1998…

from hacked CRU email:

‘Michael Mann wrote in answer:

“extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. itsparticularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job).from What I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might beappropriate forthe Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s uphere?” ‘

‘For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solaractivity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.

Perhaps the art of weather forecasting has become so dominated bysupercomputers, and climate research so dominated by the impact of man onglobal climate, that thoughts of how natural processes, such as solarvariation, could influence our climate have been largely overlooked, until veryrecently.

This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As oneleading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now nolonger taboo. And about time, too.’

Had to laugh at this item (7.17am) on Today this morning. It suggest the RADICAL news that the big orange thing in the sky – the Sun – might actually affect weather on the Earth. I know, I know, who would have figured that one, huh? Anyway, our dear friend Richard Black was on hand to quickly point out that whilst the Sun may help us predict UK winters, this has no effect in any way on the very real danger of …Man Made Global Warming. (Actually, he’s right in one way, since AGW doesn’t exist, nothing can have an impact on it!) It was the speed of his comment that was entertaining, he was clearly determined that no one out there might have a second or two to conclude that it is the Sun, that vast body at the heart of our Solar System, that is the major determinant of our planet’s weather. And that might unravel the hysterical but lucrative fantasy of AGW.

If you use the BBC News website’s ‘Search’ function, as many do, you’ll find that broad categories have a right-hand section where BBC editors recommend sites ‘elsewhere on the web’ for readers to investigate. Some of these (usually links to newspapers or news agencies) are regularly updated. Others are much more permanent choices, staying up for several months. The three examples below have been the editor’s choice for over half a year now (at the very least). Do they provide BBC Online readers with a fair spread of opinion? Hardly.

Type in ‘Climate Change’ and the two other sites permanently linked to are:The Met OfficeGreenpeace International

Type in ‘Wind Farms’ and the permanent Editor’s Choices are:Renewable UK“Renewable UK, formerly the British Wind Energy Association, the professional body for the UK’s wind and marine industries, providing news, links and downloadable resources”Yes2Wind“Learn about the Yes2Wind campaign to use wind energy to tackle global warming”(Incidentally, there is also a No2Wind website, which the BBC chooses not to link to).

Finally, type in ‘European Union’ and the only other site on the web permanently linked to is:Europa(the official website of the European Union)

My Biased BBC colleague Robin Horbury is much better at AGW posts than me but I wanted to bring Richard Black’s latest salvo to your attention. Note how poor Richard feels oppressed by those who dare question AGW. He seems to now saying that “ideological purity” (or what we simply call balance) is impossible because he is under attack from pro-warmers as well as “deniers”. Please be gentle with your feedback, I fear Richard is feeling hot under the collar!

And just when it seemed like the BBC might be having second thoughts on the validity of the AGW agenda is has pursued with such vigour!

“Three UK groups studying climate change have issued an unprecedented statement about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council say the science underpinning climate change is more alarming than ever. They say the 2007 UK floods, 2003 heatwave in Europe and recent droughts were consistent with emerging patterns. Their comments came ahead of crunch UN climate talks in Copenhagen next month.”

The tone and content of the debate this morning could not be clearer – the world is going to suffer unprecedented global warming unless our leaders at Copenhagen gain agreement on how to tax the hell out of us and cripple our economies. Talk about hot air…

Anyone listen to Al Gore interviewed – if that is the right word for it – on “Today” this morning? I was hoping that Naughtie might have found the time to ask Gore how it feels to be the first Green Billionaire, or perhaps why he has not given up eating meat yet, given the perils of meat eating highlighted by the IPCC no less! But alas, his fawning left no time for such questioning!

Yes, sunhats off to Tyler at Burning our Money who draws something to my attention: the reason the BBC are biased on the “climate change” issue is because they decided to be two years ago. This decision may be rather more controversial now than then, as sceptics are more organised and data more negative for the AGW hypothesis. DV mentioned a related study last week.

I can’t have been reading the excellent Mr Tyler’s blog back then, or if I did I missed it; certainly Jeremy Paxman seemed to have missed it when he said that “People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago” (as chronicled in our sidebar). He assumed correctly (in a sense), but he needn’t have assumed. [in fact I think Paxman may have been having a dig here: a long time ago being well before it became official BBC policy]

Tyler reported in ’07 (and I missed) that the BBC in their report called, ahem, “safeguarding impartiality”, said that “The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.”

So that was that: by fiat the BBC decided the narrative had changed; what numerous people from scientific and non-scientific backgrounds either refused to be convinced by or actively disbelieved had actually to be promulgated.

This is excellent evidence that the “impartiality” meme on which the BBC base their public service justification is unworkable, at least if they are also to “educate and inform”. To do these they need to know “the truth” about newsworthy issues, which is oxymoronic really- they wouldn’t be news if they were as predicable as “truth” (for want of a better word) needs to be. Apple falls from tree- shock, disbelief!

Anyway, yesterday Roger Harrabin started criticising the Met Officefor failed forecasts- the same Met Office which has been teaching the Beeb all about global warming. Is this preparatory for what could be known as the BBC’s Great Climate Trackback?

For some odd reason, I figure this is a story the BBC won’t be running anytime soon! You see, it appears that a new peer-reviewed climate study is presenting a head on challenge to man-made global warming claims.

The study by three climate researchers appears in the July 23, 2009 edition of Journal of Geophysical Research. Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity. Oh no! But I thought “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”?

Expect the BBC to remain mute on this – doesn’t gain the same ratings as “End of world due any day now”, does it? Nor does it fit the narrative! No, THIS is the relentless pro AGW line the BBC peddles.

Fascinating to see here that even when the BBC is salivating over the G8 conference (aka fashionable posturing for already over sized political egos) it cannot resist the temptation to shill for AGW. Note the convenient link in the G8 story that presumes to show us how “global temperatures have risen” so reinforcing the narrative that demands we must obey Obama and the rest of the eco-loons. When it comes to climate, the BBC does not allow any debate. The starting point is that AGW is a fact, and the only issue is how much should we pay in the form of raised taxes and reduced liberties. With Robert Harrabin there to help lead the unholy (geek) chorus, is it any wonder that so many people are so spectacularly uninformed on this issue?

Yasser Dasmibehbi November 19, 2018 at 10:12 pm on Start the Week Thread 19 November 2018Anybody know what's happening with the vote of no confidence in the ghastly Theresa May? When I last posted on...